REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 41
PEOPLE OF THE
PHIPPINES,
Plaintiff Criminal Case No. R-
MNL-23-08020-CR
-versus-
For: Qualified Theft
MAR ALVIN A. BALINGIT
Accused
x-------------------------------------------x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(WITH PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT)
___________________________________
Accused MAR ALVIN A. BALINGIT, through the
undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves for the DISMISSAL of the instant case
and for his ACQUITTAL on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence, and further states that:
TIMELINESS OF THE FILING
OF THE PLEADING
On December 5, 2024, Accused through counsel was
granted leave to file a demurer to evidence and was
given by the Honorable Court fifteen (10) days to
submit his demurer to evidence.
1. Hence, the instant Demurrer to Evidence being
filed within the 10-day period, is thus, timely filed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2. An Information were filed against herein Accused
MAR ALVIN BALINGIT for Qualified Theft, allegedly
committed as follows:
“Criminal Case No. R-MNL-23-08020-CR:
INFORMATION
“The undersigned accuses MAR ALVIN A.
BALINGIT of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT
committed as follows;
That in or about and during the period
comprised from January 10, 2023 up to January
14, 2023, in the City of Manila Philippines the said
accused with one criminal intent, with intent to
gain and without the knowledge and consent of
the owner thereof, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steak, and take
away cash amount in the total amount of
P405,000.00 belonging to LUXURY FREIGHT
AND GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC. as represented
by BRAYN U. LANDICHO, intended for payment
to RO ILAGAN, to the damage and prejudice of
the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P
405,000.00, Philippine Currency.
That in the commission of the said
offense, the said accused, acted with
unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, he
being then an agent/ freelance Port Operation
Specialist and Consultant and as such had free
access to the stolen cash.
Contrary to Law.”
3. During arraignment, herein Accused MAR ALVIN
A. BALINGIT pleaded not guilty.
4. Trial ensued, the prosecution presented its
evidence and witnesses, however, it failed to present one of
its witness, Rowel Reyes.
5. On November 18, 2024, the prosecution orally
submitted its formal offer of evidence.
6. On December 5, 2024, the Honorable Court
granted the Motion for Leave of Court to file Demurrer to
Evidence.
7. Hence, this Demurrer to Evidence.
GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER
2
I. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY
AND ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED
THEFT.
ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION
I. THE PROSECUTION FAILED
TO ESTABLISH ANY AND ALL
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF
QUALIFIED THEFT.
8. In the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS
YOLANDA SANTOS1 the Supreme Court enumerated the
elements of Qualified Theft to wit;
“Thus, the elements of qualified theft punishable
under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC are
as follows: (1) there was a taking of personal property;
(2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking
was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking
was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against
person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was
done under any of the circumstances enumerated in
Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of
confidence.”
9. Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines states that;
“The crime of theft shall be punished by the
penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in the next preceding
article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen
is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or
consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the
plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or
if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.” 2
1
People of the Philippines v Yolanda Santos G.R. No. 237982, October 14 2024
2
ACT 3815 or The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. 71)
3
10. The first and most important element of qualified
theft is that there must be taking of personal property, in
this case the witness of the prosecution Mr. Brayn Landicho
admitted in his judicial affidavit that there was a PAYMENT
made to the accused.
14) Q: How much did you give to Mr. Balingit to
pay for the crane rentals?
A: The total amount paid to Mr. Alvin Balingit
amounted to Php 956,000.00
xxxx
15) Q: How did you pay it?
A: We paid it in cash. Our personnel Rowel
Reyes HANDED the said amount to Mr.
Balingit3
(emphasis supplied)
11. The crime of qualified theft entails that there be
taking of property. However, there can be no taking of the
personal property if it was willingly handed to the accused.
Moreover, the accused issued an acknowledgment receipt
which was received by the private complainants and is now
marked as Exhibit “F” of the prosecution. Sufficient to say
that no one will issue a receipt after unlawfully taking other’s
property.
12. For glaring and obvious reasons it can be safely
concluded that there was no taking of personal property.
13. There being no taking of personal property, the
rest of the elements of the crime of Qualified Theft cannot be
proven.
14. The information states that there was grave abuse
of confidence, however, the prosecution failed to establish
the same. In People v Cahilig the Court likewise found that
the victim reposed the accused with high trust and
confidence because he handles, manages, receives, and
disburses funds. However, in this case, not only did Luxury
Freight denied that the accused is not their employee, they
have also admitted to entering into a contract with the
same.
3
Questions 14 and 15 of the Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Brayn Landicho, page 5
4
15. The prosecution likewise avers that the accused
did not remit the right amount to R.O. Ilagan, however the
same not only denied that the accused is their employee,
the witness from R.O. Ilagan admitted that there was an
arrangement between the owner of R.O. Ilagan and the
accused. Nonetheless if the accused failed to remit to R.O.
Ilagan, then the latter should be the one to file a complaint
against the accused and not the private complainant in this
case.
16. All these things considered; Accused respectfully
submits that the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view thereof,
the charges against herein Accused must be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is
respectfully prayed unto the Honorable Court that the
charges against herein Accused MAR ALVIN A. BALINGIT
for violation of Article 310 of The Revised Penal Code as
amended, be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence, and
that he be ACQUITTED for the same for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Other reliefs, as may be considered just and equitable
under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for the City of Manila, 12 December 2024.
BANICO AND MORADA LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Accused
Unit 201, NSR Building
1837 Dallas cor. Evangelista Street
Brgy. Pio del Pilar, Makati City
Email: banicomoradalaw@gmail.com
Phone Number: (+632) 7719-7042
JOSE MARI GERARDO R. BANICO
PTR No. 9569955; 1/11/23; Makati City
IBP O.R. No. LRN-018554; 1/12/18; Makati City
5
Roll of Attorney’s No. 68414
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021564
Copy furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila City Hall
NOTICE OF HEARING
HON. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
Branch 41, Regional Trial Court
Manila
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila City Hall
Atty. Chika E. Bugtas
Blk 9 Lot 17 Camella Bucandala Phase 4, Alapan 2B
Imus City, Cavite
Greetings:
In view of the urgency of the motion, please take note
that the foregoing motion will be submitted for the
consideration and approval of this Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt thereof.
JOHN KEVIN M. SERRANO
EXPLANATION
The service of the foregoing pleading upon the above-
named parties were made by private courier (LBC) due to
6
time, manpower, and distance constraints to effect timely
personal service of the same.
JOHN KEVIN M. SERRANO
